tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38232970508179401702018-03-06T06:18:55.346-08:00theuncommittedsocialscientistplanning warshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03781227980755715448noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3823297050817940170.post-35185790978116615342017-12-23T05:16:00.000-08:002017-12-23T05:16:36.121-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><b><u>JOBS FOR THE BOYS-&nbsp; AND THE OCCASIONAL GIRL&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DEVOLUTION</u>,</b><br /><b><u>SEPARATISM AND THE SELF-INTEREST OF THE POLITICAL CLASS</u></b><br /><b><u><br /></u></b>One of the most interesting developments in social science in recent decades has been<br />"public choice theory", stemming from books by Anthony Downs and Mancur Olsen<br />in the late 1950s and a book "The Calculus of Consent" by James M. Buchanan and<br />Gordon Tullock.&nbsp; Buchanan was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics in 1986 for<br />his work in this field.&nbsp; In simple terms the gist of the theory is that elected politicians<br />are motivated at least partly by self-interest and this may diverge from the interests<br />of the population which elected them- in other words, that the idea of individuals maximising<br />income and profit which underlies economic theory (notwithstanding the most recent<br />Nobel Prize-winner) applies also in the political sphere. Probably one reason the theory has<br />not had the attention it deserves is the name, which seems rather misleading since the<br />point is that the public in many cases does <u>not</u>&nbsp;have a choice.<br />An important way in which the theory might have been developed, but has not been, is in<br />regard to the <u>proliferation of political entities</u>&nbsp;and the consequent increase in the number<br />of jobs available to politicians and their associates (or, if one wanted to be insulting,<br />their hangers-on).&nbsp; The latter includes not only their employees but workers in the<br />local media&nbsp; (elections always give a boost to newspaper circulation and TV<br />viewing), researchers, and beneficiaries of the patronage, e.g. job-creation<br />schemes, which usually come with the creating of a new political organisation.<br />(An even more far-reaching but controversial extension might be wars-<br />is it possible that some wars were in the interests of the ruling elite but not of the<br />mass of the population?)<br />Advocates of devolution&nbsp; (one of the main expressions in Britain is the endless pressure<br />for creating city Mayors) say that money will be better spent if decisions on how to<br />spend it are made locally.&nbsp; So far as I know no serious attempt has been made to test<br />this claim- it is of course always possible to point to cases where public spending has<br />brought benefits (as well as some where it has done harm) but tests of whether devolution<br />of spending has improved its efficiency are lacking. Wider fiscal autonomy is not usually<br />proposed- devolution advocates assume that the city or region will get the same, or even<br />more, money from central government.&nbsp; Pressure for devolution usually comes from&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;regions that are poorer than the national average.<br />There are a few cases where the pressure is from richer regions.&nbsp; This is currently the case<br />with Catalonia and the North of Italy. Even in such cases the extra costs of creating a<br />new tier of government need to be taken into account.&nbsp; Close study of this process where<br />devolution or separatism has been implemented would be very valuable. For example, if<br />if is possible to disregard the (important) non-fiscal aspects, what has been the cost of the<br />dissolution of the former Yugoslavia into separate states, with their own armed forces,<br />Embassies etc?&nbsp; I was involved in writing reports on the West Indies in the 1960s when<br />several states had become independent, and even the cost of maintaining foreign Embassies<br />and United Nations representation was a significant item in their budgets (some have<br />since merged).&nbsp; Separatists should also bear in mind that relative prosperity may change, for<br />example Scotland*s long-standing claims based on oil revenues have now been well and<br />truly (and, for practical purposes, permanently) scuttled.<br /><br /><br /></div>planning warshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03781227980755715448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3823297050817940170.post-55272478100179097882016-12-23T05:16:00.001-08:002016-12-23T05:16:37.285-08:00the elderly, the economy and the missing research<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">THE ELDERLY THE ECONOMY AND THE MISSING RESEARCH<br /><br /><br />In a new book, "The war against the old", John Sutherland cites criticism of the<br />elderly*s perks- free TV and bus travel, the winter fuel allowance- and poor<br />conditions in care homes as evidence of a war against the elderly by the rest<br />of the population.&nbsp; The problems caused by the rise in the proportion of old<br />people in the population have been predictable for a long time.&nbsp; I dealt with<br />them in two books published in the late 1970s-&nbsp; "Governments and<br />growth" and "Labour supply in economic development".&nbsp; The solutions have<br />also been clear. The same medical and social advances which have led<br />to more elderly people also enable them to go on working longer. The US had<br />already raised the official retirement age to 69 in the late 1960s.&nbsp; This does<br />not mean continuing in the same job at the same pay.&nbsp; In many cases a<br />career shift, possibly after a elderly "gap year", is needed. Also, it should be<br />taken for granted that after leaving a permanent job, the elderly should<br />try self-employment. The expertise and contacts built up during 40 years of<br />salaried work, as well as the great advantage that free travel provides in searching<br />for and holding employment, should give them a considerable competitive<br />advantage in the labour market.<br />However a large-scale reorientation of medical and social research is needed.<br />The aim should be to find out what are the main medical problems which prevent<br />older people from working- the same ones which prevent them leading an active life.<br />Probably the most important are <u>walking difficulties</u>, and the main causes of these<br />are probably arthritis and, for men, catherisation to deal with an enlarged prostate<br />(which affects 70 per cent of men over 70).&nbsp; Research and treatment for these<br />conditions is probably grossly deficient compared with, say, AIDS or breast cancer,<br />which have well-organised and vocal pressure groups.&nbsp; Disability charities, notably<br />Scope, concentrate on trying to get more government money and support, and do not<br />ask what are the reasons people come to need their services&nbsp; (Indeed like many<br />charities they probably regard an expansion of their clientele as desirable.). Why do not<br />these or some of the big medical charities- the Wellcome Trust and the Francis<br />Crick Foundation-&nbsp; initiate some large-scale research, combing medical and social<br />expertise, on what dissuades the elderly from taking up productive work?&nbsp; (I am of<br />course aware that many do voluntary work).<br />Personally I would be very happy to see the free TV licence go, which would add the<br />elderly*s voice in pressure to abolish the licence, provided the free travel and the<br />winter fuel allowance remain (but perhaps the latter could be reduced, at least in<br />southern England, if we continue getting mild winters?)<br /><br /></div>planning warshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03781227980755715448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3823297050817940170.post-81466920816055669932016-03-03T04:18:00.001-08:002017-12-23T04:20:39.196-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><u>WHERE IS THE SOCIAL <b>SCIENCE </b>WHEN IT IS NEEDED?</u><br /><br />A glance through the websites of the Economc and Social Research Council and the grant-making<br />foundations will show a number of projects which would not cause irretrievable loss,<br />intellectual or material, if they were cancelled. At the same time, there are obvious and<br />important issues which social scientists have not tackled.&nbsp; Here are some widely-discussed<br />issues which it would be feasible for social scientists to make a decisive contribution, but<br />they have not done so.&nbsp; In terms of method, one major category is where a number of causal<br />factors are operative in an important social problem, and where the need is to quantify,<br />at least roughly, their importance. Quite often it would probably be found that some of the<br />alleged causes are insignificant and others of decisive importance; the task is to devise<br />tests and investigations to determine which.<br /><u>1.&nbsp; The decline of the high street.- </u>one of the many issues on which the government has<br />appouinted a "Czar", who has not apparently made any progress in reversing the decline<br />or disentangling the causal factors.&nbsp; Three are obvious: the growth of online shopping, the proliferation of charity shops, and the growth of out-of-town shops.&nbsp; The impact of the<br />first is obviously in the areas where the internet has made most progress. Probably the<br />most important are travel agents and books, also clothing, food and a variety of others.<br />Charity shops have impacted on clothing, hiusehold goods, books and furniture.&nbsp; (I can<br />cite charity bookshops and furntiture stores where quality is so good and prices so<br />low that no commercial venture could compete; obviously the enxt step is to analyse<br />the causes of charity shops&nbsp; competitive advantages and see how far they are justifiable).<br />Out-of-town shopping is closely related to car use and parking charges; there is an urgent need for a comperhensive survey of these charges in out-of-town locations and probably a case for imposing<br />a parking tax, in view of the land-use requirements.<br /><u>2.&nbsp; Regional differences in mortality and morbidity rates.</u><br />Poverty is the most usually cited.&nbsp; Diet, smoking acohol and drug use are also (possibly<br />more) important and their effects are, at least for the first three, easily quantifiable.<br />I would add another which I beleive might turn out to be top of the list-&nbsp; weather. Populations<br />on the west coast of Britain, including the north-west and western Scotland, get more rain<br />and less sunshine than other parts of the country, consequently lack vitamin D.&nbsp; A fairly easy<br />test of this last factor would be to compare populations in the western half of Brtain with<br />those in the eastern half, allowing as far as possible for income, diet, etc.<br /><u>3.&nbsp; Obesity </u><br />The significant thing has obviously been the rise since the 1950s.&nbsp; Whether this is due<br />to consumption of particular foods, mainly sugar, or to an increase in total calories<br />consumption could easily be determined from food consumpio statistics. There is also<br />the decline in manual work, which has affected men more than women, and in household<br />work which has had the reverse effect.&nbsp; The rise in car use at the expense of walking<br />and cycling msut also be taken into account, and a factor which I would guess is very<br />important is the rise in awerage household temperatures, from ca. 17 C in the 1950s to an<br />unhealthy 20 or 21 degrees centigrade.&nbsp; (It is true that deaths rise in cold weather, but I would<br />guess that this is due to the effect,e specially on the elderly and infiirm, of being out-of-<br />doors is cold weather,a nd not as fuel campaigners claim to low indoor temperatures)<br /><br /><br /><br /></div>planning warshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03781227980755715448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3823297050817940170.post-29957976910134566402015-04-27T08:13:00.001-07:002017-12-23T04:20:39.065-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><u>STATISTICAL FALLACIES IN THE GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE</u><br /><br />Introductory books on statistics usually start by noting some ways in which they can<br />used to mislead.&nbsp; A popular textbook possibly still in use was called "How to lie with<br />statistics",&nbsp; Three elementary fallacies were usually noted:&nbsp; the selection of base dates<br />for a time series;&nbsp; possible misuse or misunderstanding of averages;&nbsp; and the<br />fact that correlation does not imply causation.&nbsp; All three are widely evident in the<br />debate about global warming.<br /><u>(1)&nbsp; Selective use of base dates:&nbsp; </u>Long-run series of temperature statistics usually start<br />about 1850,&nbsp; However this was towards the end of the Little Ice Age&nbsp; (in fact, I think<br />the cold era could be regarded as continuing until about 1900) so that this starting<br />point shows figures for subsequent years rising more than they would is based on<br />a presumably "more normal"&nbsp; one.&nbsp; Even more importantly, the two or three decades<br />leading up to 1970 (in some cases, 1976)&nbsp; were much colder than the preceding five,<br />so that an annual series starting then shows a much higher rise since. What would be<br />a "normal" year ro series of years to use as a base date?&nbsp; The answer is that there<br />isn t one, and all that can be done is to give the raw figures for as many years as<br />possible and allow the reader to form a judgement.<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The practice, adopted by all sides in the global warming<br />debate, of giving annual figures as "anomolies"&nbsp; also presupposes that the base date(s)<br />are in some sense normal.&nbsp; Using a fairly long period of time as the base helps to<br />remedy this; for example the most recent World Bank Development Report, for 2014,<br />shows (Table 9, p.316)&nbsp; global temperatures relative to 1951-1980.&nbsp; This seems at<br />first sight a fairly fool-proof&nbsp; procedure, <u>but</u> it includes three probably cold decades and only one warm one, 1970-1980.<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The anti-warmists, in arguing that global temperatures have not<br />risen since about 1997, fall into the same fallacy.&nbsp; It is fairly universally agreed that<br />the decade of the 1990s was exceptionally warm&nbsp; (there were three El Ninos, which<br />usually come at intervals of up to five years)&nbsp; and a stable statistical series starting from<br />a high base date is compatible with a long-run rising trend.&nbsp; (In any case, it does not seem<br />to be true that global temperatures have not risen since ca. 1997.&nbsp; The World Bank<br />table just quoted shows an anomaly of 0.59 for 2001-2010, compared wirth 0.37 for<br />1991-2000.)<br /><u>(2)&nbsp; The dangers of averages</u>&nbsp; The elementary statistical textbooks often quote the<br />example of the non-swimmer told that a river is on average 3 feet deep, walks in and<br />gets drowned.&nbsp; The point of course is that an river could be much deeper than three feet<br />in some parts if it is shallower than that in others.&nbsp; .Foe many (most) purposes, differences<br />in temperature-&nbsp; polar, temperate zones and tropics; day and night;&nbsp; summer and winter,<br />ground level and atmosphere (lower and upper)- \are more important in tryng to elucidate<br />causal relationships than is the global average.&nbsp; In addition it seems that there is a causal<br />link between opposing trends in different regions.&nbsp; This may be more apparent in<br />rainfall than in temperature trends. For example there seems to be a link between wet<br />weather caused by El Nino in the Southern Hemisphere and drought in California&nbsp; (though,<br />one of many cases where assumptions and prediction are unrelaible, the expected severe<br />El Nino in 2014 did not materialise, and California is suffering one of its worst droughts<br />on record).<br /><u>(3)&nbsp; Correlation does not imply causation</u>&nbsp; The textbooks in the 1950s used to quote the<br />example of the birth rate and the number of storks in Sweden in the 1930s- both were<br />falling at about the same rate. Many discussions of the link between atmospheric carbon<br />dioxide and global temperatures consist of little more than a juxtaposition of two<br />series of statistics, with little attempt to set out<u> </u>the physics, chemistry and meterology<br />of the presumed link&nbsp; (this is true for example of Unit 1, "Global Warming", in an<br />otherwise admirable Open University course "Exploring Science",&nbsp; S104 and, even more<br />a very close examination of&nbsp; alternative&nbsp; explanations.<br /><br />anthropogenic.<br /><br /><br /></div>planning warshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03781227980755715448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3823297050817940170.post-67420576202447738512015-04-20T05:15:00.001-07:002017-12-23T04:20:39.171-08:00theuncommittedsocialscientist: the 150-year rise in world temperature<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br /></div>planning warshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03781227980755715448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3823297050817940170.post-38986543429819187632015-03-20T06:24:00.001-07:002017-12-23T04:20:39.118-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><u>GLOBAL WARMING:&nbsp; IS THERE A SCIENTIFIC CONCENSUS?</u> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It is frequently asserted that there is an overwhelming<br />concensus of expert opinion that dangerous global warming is taking place and is<br />caused mainly by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.&nbsp; This view is bolstered by<br />citing the number of scientfic papers which support&nbsp; it.&nbsp; Opponents cite the large<br />number of scientific papers which cast doubt on the thesis.<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Assessment of the controversy requires an examination<br />of the procedure of scientific publication, depending heavily on "peer group review",&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />and the associated research grants and academic appointments and promotion.&nbsp; The<br />procedures have developed comparatively recently, since the huge explosion of university<br />teaching and research since the early 1960s.&nbsp; At the risk of being accused of caricature,<br />it might be said that before that time academics published something only when they<br />had or thought they had something valuable to say;&nbsp; since then it has become<br />necessary to publish in a peer-reviewed journal in order to qualify for a research<br />grant and an academic job. From a lifetime working in social science teaching and<br />research, I would be dubious about the validity of the procedures there. No social<br />science journal, as far as I know, takes the elementary precaution of reviewing<br />submissions "blind", to rule out the possibility of preference being given to authors<br />and institutions which can give reciprocal favours. &nbsp; In three fields with which I have<br />been particularly concerned- crime, immigration into Britain, and global warming- I<br />believe social science research bodies have acted not merely to promote a particular<br />standpoint but to suppress dissenting views.<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I have always believed that in physical sciences the<br />situation is different and that the peer-group review system works as it should, but the<br />global warming debate suggests that at least in this field there are grave defects.<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The view that there is an large conscensus in favour<br />of anthropogenic CO2 as the main cause of warming ignores the long-established<br />and still continuing work of astrophysiocists and others who support the <br />Milankovitch theory of climate change- that it is due to the earth*s relationship to<br />the sun- and also the large number who are still examining the idea that it is due<br />to solar acivity, especially sunspots.&nbsp; It is highly significant that several of these, in<br />contrast to the IPCC and other warmists, conclude that the causes of climate change<br />are at present unknown. For example Brian McDougall,&nbsp; <i>Frozen earth:&nbsp; the once and</i><br /><i>future story of ice ages&nbsp; </i>(University fo California Press, 2008) says that since the<br />general acceptance of the tehory of ice ages in the middle of the nineteenth century<br />"literally hundreds, perahps even thousands, of scientists have pursuded research into<br />the causes of ice ages.&nbsp; The intellectual challenge presented by the geological event,<br />with its multiple possibilities, has attracted the efforts of geologists, chemists,<br />physicists, mathematicians, biologists and climatologists.&nbsp; There is still much uncertainty<br />about how, and especially why, an ice age actually happens.&nbsp; <i>To be sure, there are</i><br /><i>hypotheses, but none have yet attained the status of an accepted theory&nbsp; </i>(p.8-italics<br />added).<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A question which can usefully be posed to all who<br />believe they know the causes of climate change is what caused the Little Ice Age<br />(about 1350 to 1850) and its ending. An authoritative study of the literature on sunspots<br />(Judith Broady, <i>The enigma of susnspots,&nbsp; </i>Floris Books, Edinburgh, 2002) concludes<br />"The verdict at present has to remain that neither climate nor solar variability are<br />suffcieintly well defined, either spatially or temporarily, nor their causes adequately<br />understood.&nbsp; Increasing solar and human activity both contribute to global warming<br />but in what proportion is still unknown..... At the moment all we have is surmises and<br />it is pretty unlikely that we shallever stumble on four- or five-hundred year-old<br />reliable meterological records for the whole planet". (pp.171-172).<br /><br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </div>planning warshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03781227980755715448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3823297050817940170.post-83323081741761703692015-03-17T08:03:00.000-07:002017-12-23T04:20:39.231-08:00the 150-year rise in world temperature<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">It is agreed that world temperatures have risen by some 1.8oC since about 1850,<br />which is also about the time recording instruments came widely into use. I think<br />in fact the start of the upward trend could be more correctly put at about 1900.<br />From then till about 1940 temperatures especially in the Arctic rose markedly,<br />after which there was a 30-year pause or decline until about 1970, when the<br />temperature rise began which gave rise to the current widespread concern<br />about warming. &nbsp;It is hardly necessary to say that these dates are not exact<br />and that the start and end dates varied between countries and regions.<br />&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The rise since about 1970 can therefore be seen as a<br />recovery from the exceptionally cold spell of the preceding 30 years, and the rise<br />from 1850 or 1900 can be seen as a recovery from the exceptional cold of the<br />Little Ice Age. &nbsp;Far from being a hockey-stick picture of 1,000 or more years<br />of temperature stability followed by a steep upsurge in the twentieth century, the<br />picture is therefore one of continuous fluctuations.<br />&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Hubert Lamb &nbsp;(1913-1997) for long Britain*s leading<br />climatologist and founder in 1972 of the University of East Anglia*s &nbsp;Centre<br />for Climate Research (later hi-jacked by the warmists) &nbsp;wrote in <i>Climate,</i><br /><i>history and the modern world &nbsp;</i>(Methuen, 1982):<br />&nbsp; &nbsp;The cooling of the Arctic since 1950-1960 has been most marked in the very<br />&nbsp; &nbsp;same regions that experienced the strongest warming in the earlier decades of<br />&nbsp; &nbsp;the present century, namely the central Arctic and the northernmost parts of the<br />&nbsp; &nbsp;two great continents remote from the world*s oceans but also in the Norwegian-<br />&nbsp; &nbsp;East Greenland sea. In some places e.g. the Franz Josef Land archipelago near<br />&nbsp; &nbsp;80oN-60oE, the long-term temperature fell by 3-4 degrees C and the ten-year<br />&nbsp; &nbsp;average temperatures became 6 to 10 degrees colder in the 1960s compared with<br />&nbsp; &nbsp;the preceding decades. &nbsp;It is clear from Icelandic oceanographic surveys that<br />&nbsp; &nbsp;changes in the ocean currents have been involved, including a greatly (in the<br />&nbsp; &nbsp;extreme case, ten times) increased flow of the East Greenland Current, bringing<br />&nbsp; &nbsp;polar water southwards. It has in several years, especially 1968 and 1969 but also<br />&nbsp; &nbsp;1955, 1975 and 1979 brought more Arctic sea ice to the coast of Iceland than for<br />&nbsp; &nbsp;fifty years. &nbsp;In April-May 1968 and 1969 the island was half surrounded by ice,<br />&nbsp; &nbsp;as had not occurred since 1888.<br />&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;His next paragraph gives an idea of why some warming is<br />regarded as beneficial, not only in Greenland and Iceland but also in Scandinavia,<br />Scotland, Canada and Russia &nbsp;In the first four cold has historically been associated<br />with famine and emigration.<br />&nbsp; &nbsp;Such ice years have always been dreaded in Iceland*s history because of the<br />&nbsp; &nbsp;depression of summer temperatures and the effect on farm production. In the<br />&nbsp; &nbsp;1950s the mean temperatures of the summer half-year in Iceland had been 7.7<br />&nbsp; &nbsp;degrees C and the average hay yield 4.3 tonnes/hectare. In the late 1960s with mean<br />&nbsp; &nbsp;temperatures of 6.8 degrees the average hay yield was only 3 tonnes/hectare despite<br />&nbsp; &nbsp;the use of more fertilisers. The temperature level was dangerously close to the point<br />&nbsp; &nbsp;at which grass virtually ceases to grow. The country*s yield of potatoes was<br />&nbsp; &nbsp;similarly reduced. &nbsp;The 1960s also saw the abandonment of attempts at corn growing<br />&nbsp; in Iceland which had been resumed in the warmer decades of the century after a lapse<br />&nbsp; of some hundreds of years.<br />&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<i>Further discussion in the author*s THE GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE- &nbsp;CAN&nbsp;</i><br /><i>SCIENCE PREVAIL? &nbsp;published by Farsight Research, 1 Wetheral Court, Alston Road,</i><br /><i>London SW17 OTS on21st April, 2015, price £18.</i><br />&nbsp; <br />&nbsp; <br /><br /></div>planning warshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03781227980755715448noreply@blogger.com0